View Full Version : BBC Radio 3 quality?
surv1v0r
22-08-2015, 21:34
According to Wikipedia (LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_3)), BBC Radio 3 uses "some" dynamic range compression on FM and dynamic range control on DAB which allegedly allows compression to be defined by the user.
So far as I can tell from the Wikipedia details, Radio 3 is broadcast on DAB at 192 kbit/s whereas Radio 4 is is broadcast at 128 kbit/s. (I seem to recall that they tried broadcasting at 128 kbit/s some time ago and stopped as a result of an outcry by listeners.)
In September 2010, for the final week of the Proms broadcasts, the BBC trialled XHQ (Extra High Quality), a live Internet stream transmitted at a rate of 320 kbit/s. This technology was later developed further, and Radio 3 became the first BBC Radio station to broadcast permanently in this High Definition Sound (as it has been termed) format - presumably on the Internet only?
Can anyone explain what is actually going on here? Does XHQ mean that the highest quality in which one can hear Radio 3 is over the Internet or via FM as I usually listen to it?
According to this it is best on iPlayer
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2009/aug/06/iplayer-best-sound-radio
surv1v0r
22-08-2015, 22:30
Thanks for that link. I had a look through it and the comments and as a few people pointed out, iPlayer is subject to contention and random slowdown. There also appears to be a suggestion that Radio 3 doesn't use digital range compression (where the quiet bits get louder and the louder bits get quieter) in the evenings although I can't really see why the time of day should make a difference.
I found an interesting review of the Proms broadcast (in 2009) HERE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2009/10/what_happens_to_the_proms_afte.shtml), some of the comments are noteworthy. I see that "Radio 3 FM is bandwidth-limited to 15 kHz".
Audio Advent
22-08-2015, 22:40
I've read other comparisons, technical ones which agree with that too (comparing DAB, FreeSat, Freeview and iplayer streams).
FM is still sonically very good and very enjoyable with a great tuner - but technically inferior. Sometimes I do actually prefer FM Radio 3 but depends on my audio mood!
Michael loves music
23-08-2015, 08:17
Radio 2 with Ken Bruce is amazing
Stratmangler
23-08-2015, 09:42
"Radio 3 FM is bandwidth-limited to 15 kHz".
As is all FM radio
Ammonite Audio
23-08-2015, 09:45
Radio 2 with Ken Bruce is amazing
I've noticed that, also on the Chris Evans show; however the SQ on other daytime Radio 2 stations is appalling (over FM). I do wonder whether certain presenters insist on certain quality standards. Steve Wright clearly could not give a damn for broadcast quality, since the entire output of his show seems to be aggressively compressed.
I think it could be to do with the different studios that the presenters are broadcasting from, not all of which will necessarily have the same equipment, or for that matter, neither will all shows have the same producer (i.e the same person making the decisions, in terms of the show's 'sonic presentation') - and that will probably make the most difference of all.
I don't think it's got anything to do with some presenters demanding higher standards. I would imagine that they'll simply work with what they are given.
Marco.
Interesting article in Gardian i read recently and bookmarked
www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2014/apr/25/what-are-the-options-for-radio-in-a-digital-age
Stratmangler
23-08-2015, 10:11
The most of the output of Radio 2 comes from a suite of studios housed in Western House in London.
There are exceptions.
Mark Radcliffe is a true, blue Mancunian, and refuses to leave the Northwest. So it's Media City in Salford where he broadcasts from.
The most of the output of Radio 2 comes from a suite of studios housed in Western House in London.
Yup, which won't all necessarily be fitted with identical equipment. Like I said though, the decisions of the producer will ultimately determine how any specific show 'sounds', even when broadcast from the same station.
Marco.
Rothchild
23-08-2015, 10:39
Regardless of the nuances between shows each of the Beeb station very clearly have their own sonic fingerprint.
R4 is bordering on 'dark' with a very natural tone and very little compression - flipping over to R2 (as I tend to do when the Archers comes on) reveals that R2 sounds like a shattered mirror by comparison, with an over exagerated 'smile' eq nasty sibilants (which are further 'enhanced' by their compression settings). 6 Music is closer to R4 for tone but has more compression.
'Fraid I can't comment on R3 as I'm not a regular there, that said; about the comment that the use compression in the day time I would assume is because there are DJs talking (for which compression is a useful safety feature) whereas in the evening when they get on with the main programme then don't need it?
PaulStewart
23-08-2015, 10:57
I can't comment on R3 as I'm not a regular there, that said; about the comment that the use compression in the day time I would assume is because there are DJs talking (for which compression is a useful safety feature) whereas in the evening when they get on with the main programme then don't need it?
R3 uses more compression during the day as the majority of listeners are in their cars at that time, due to road noise etc., a lower dynamic range is desireable, to prevent listeners having to ride the volume control. At night this is not necessary as most are listening at home, where a natural dynsmic can be enjoyed
Michael loves music
23-08-2015, 16:50
I've found the radio reception varies around the country in Carol vordormans bedroom radio 4 is clear in Susanna reads bedroom radio 2 was poor in Sophie Rayworths bedroom Classic FM was wonderful
surv1v0r
23-08-2015, 22:19
As is all FM radioWhy is ALL FM radio limited to 15kHz?
Presumably this is not the case with iPlayer? - Not that I would necessarily notice ;)
Which part of "BBC Radio 3 quality?" do people find most confusing? Feel free to start a thread on Radio 2, 4 or 64 - I promise not to derail it.
I've found the radio reception varies around the country in Carol vordormans bedroom radio 4 is clear in Susanna reads bedroom radio 2 was poor in Sophie Rayworths bedroom Classic FM was wonderful
That can't be true.
Carol doesn't have a radio in her bedroom...
PaulStewart
24-08-2015, 01:04
Why is ALL FM radio limited to 15kHz?
Presumably this is not the case with iPlayer? - Not that I would necessarily notice ;)
Which part of "BBC Radio 3 quality?" do people find most confusing? Feel free to start a thread on Radio 2, 4 or 64 - I promise not to derail it.
Err, just a question, why do you have to be so confrontational? Just 'cos you start a thread, it's not some kind of personal fiefdom. Others are free to comment and mild thread drift, just serves to widen the base of knowledge of the subject.
Stratmangler
24-08-2015, 06:01
Why is ALL FM radio limited to 15kHz?
Because that's the nature of the beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting
Look at the bit about stereo broadcast.
Presumably this is not the case with iPlayer? - Not that I would necessarily notice ;)
Probably not.
Which part of "BBC Radio 3 quality?" do people find most confusing? Feel free to start a thread on Radio 2, 4 or 64 - I promise not to derail it.
I'm with PaulStewart on this one.
Err, just a question, why do you have to be so confrontational? Just 'cos you start a thread, it's not some kind of personal fiefdom. Others are free to comment and mild thread drift, just serves to widen the base of knowledge of the subject.
Firebottle
24-08-2015, 06:03
Why is ALL FM radio limited to 15kHz?
It's to accommodate the way a stereo signal is broadcast over a single radio channel. Think about it, where does the left and right information come from with one signal?
The audio band up to 15kHz is the L and R combined. The L minus R is broadcast at a band between 23 and 53kHz as a suppressed carrier double sideband signal.
In order to recreate the suppressed carrier to allow L and R decoding, a low level 19kHz pilot tone is added to the transmitted L plus R audio. This is doubled in frequency in the stereo decoder to give the necessary 38kHz carrier.
The full modulation band looks like this:
http://www.edom.com.tw/userfiles/Image/2008/press/Tech%20F6.jpg
:)
Err, just a question, why do you have to be so confrontational? Just 'cos you start a thread, it's not some kind of personal fiefdom. Others are free to comment and mild thread drift, just serves to widen the base of knowledge of the subject.
Indeed. Aaron, your style of posting is winding a few folks up, so relax and lose the aggressive tone. Ta!
Marco.
surv1v0r
24-08-2015, 07:58
Indeed. Aaron, your style of posting is winding a few folks up, so relax and lose the aggressive tone. Ta!
Marco.With respect, disappointment and non-confrontational resignation.
I have asked a couple of very specific questions, about SACD and the quality of BBC Radio 3 transmissions.
When the former drifted off into the quality of vinyl as compared toSACD, that was not unreasonable; when it drifted off into a discussion of "Cash in the Attic" and the comparative merits of Led Zeppilin II a new thread, seemed appropriate - you (and other Moderators) appear not to agree and to edit posts accordingly.
When a query related to Radio 3 (Classical Music) drifted off into Radio 2 (MOR), Radio 6 Music and Radio 4 (News & Speech) it seemed unnecessary. When it started to involve the bedrooms of Carol vordorman (sic), Susanna read (sic) and Sophie Rayworth it seemed (to me) to be unacceptable derailing.
You don't agree, your site, your rules - C'est la vie.
To those who have posted helpful on-topic comments and explanation, my thanks, ;)
That's your decision, Aaron. It still doesn't excuse the confrontational/irritable tone of your posts.
Thread drift, at some point, is inevitable on any forum where there is a large and active membership. Furthermore, on AoS, we actively promote it, as the fact is, this is a community of real people, not a rigidly 'programmed' bulletin board, and real people, when having a conversation in real life, don't always rigidly stick to discussing the one topic, ad infinitum, like a collection of robots! ;)
AoS is for folk who want to discuss hi-fi and music (or other permissible topics) in a fun, polite and informal way. Therefore, the structure of discussion is not designed to resemble that of a formal debating society.
That's why we promote free-flowing discussion here: to keep it real, and I'm afraid that thread drift, in that respect, is inevitable.
Marco.
That's your decision, Aaron. It still doesn't excuse the confrontational/irritable tone of your posts.
Thread drift, at some point, is inevitable on any forum where there is a large and active membership. Furthermore, on AoS, we actively promote it, as the fact is, this is a community of real people, not a rigidly 'programmed' bulletin board, and real people, when having a conversation in real life, don't always rigidly stick to discussing the one topic, ad infinitum, like a collection of robots! ;)
AoS is for folk who want to discuss hi-fi and music (or other permissible topics) in a fun, polite and informal way. Therefore, the content is not designed to resemble that of a formal debating society.
That's why we promote free-flowing discussion here: to keep it real, and I'm afraid that thread drift, in that respect, is inevitable.
Marco.
So how does that square with the completely opposite line taken on the SACD thread:
'If I see any more crap written on this thread that has nothing to do with the thread title, it'll be removed without further warning - and if some folk can't behave, then holidays will be getting handed out!
Now, I insist we return to discussing the subject of SACD - and nothing else other than what relates to that.'
Simple. When any of the mods or I issue a warning that something is unacceptable, and has to stop, then that's precisely what must happen. A decision has been made, and so it's not up for debate! That's how it is on any forum, even on pfm. Someone has to control the stick.
At any other time, however, and as you know full well yourself, having been here for long enough, discussions are allowed to flow freely, as any number of huge threads here (brim-full with thread drift) proves.
Marco.
Now, let's return to discussing Radio 3 and the overall broadcast quality of radio stations. Cheers! :cool:
Marco.
Hope they don't switch off FM as I have listened to the so called Radio 3 HD and not been that impressed:(
Apparently there is little or no chance of that happening
Michael loves music
24-08-2015, 14:02
Indeed. Aaron, your style of posting is winding a few folks up, so relax and lose the aggressive tone. Ta!
Marco. Totally agree imho
Thanks, Michael. I appreciate that. However, let's now just get back to discussing hi-fi :)
Marco.
Michael loves music
24-08-2015, 15:33
Yes I agree the radio in the popular ladies bedrooms was a joke sorry
surv1v0r
09-09-2015, 21:27
Does anyone have any experience of listening to the BBC Proms in amazing 4.0 surround sound (LINK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects/proms-surround-sound)) or the HLS AAC stream at 320kbps (LINK (http://www.whathifi.com/news/bbc-proms-2015-to-be-broadcast-in-hd-sound-and-surround-sound-online))?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.